Jeep Grand Cherokee review
- Thread starter LizziePope
- Start date
- Jul 22, 2014
- 329
- 0
- 0
From the report :-
Jeep measures the boot’s capacity from the ceiling rather than under the parcel shelf, so the quoted 782 litres isn’t all that generous.
Can someone explain that please? Why would you not measure the boot capacity to the ceiling? - this is an estate car. Presumably it does not even have a [rear window] parcel shelf.
The report goes on to say :-
The gap between the boot floor and the luggage cover is very shallow, and the floor sits a long way off the ground.
Presumably also, the boot floor is a long way off the ground because it is a 4x4 with off-road credentials - like ground clearance.
Jeep measures the boot’s capacity from the ceiling rather than under the parcel shelf, so the quoted 782 litres isn’t all that generous.
Can someone explain that please? Why would you not measure the boot capacity to the ceiling? - this is an estate car. Presumably it does not even have a [rear window] parcel shelf.
The report goes on to say :-
The gap between the boot floor and the luggage cover is very shallow, and the floor sits a long way off the ground.
Presumably also, the boot floor is a long way off the ground because it is a 4x4 with off-road credentials - like ground clearance.
I might be wrong, but I believe that most manufacturers quote boot space measured from the floor to the bottom of the windows. This is where Jeep are out of step as they've obviously quoted the space from floor to roof. Strange I know, but...................
- Jul 22, 2014
- 329
- 0
- 0
NigelHutson wrote :-
I believe that most manufacturers quote boot space measured from the floor to the bottom of the windows. ...... Strange I know, but......
Not just strange, but crazy I'd say.
Years ago Motoring Which? magazine reviewed one of those classic Volvo estates (245?) and said the estate offered no luggage space advantage over the saloon version. This was when large saloons all had the 3-box configeration (as some still are). Hardly believing what I was reading, I realised that they were doing just that - only measuring volume up to window sill height. Thus they were negating the entire point of estate variants, which was to utilise the otherwise "wasted" space above the boot of a 3-box saloon.
I actually wrote them a letter in protest at this nonsense, and they replied that it was "unsafe" to have anything above sill level as it obstructed visibility in the driver's mirror.
I wonder if they ever allowed rear seat passengers (or made them lie down) - by the same logic they should count every car as only a two-seater. They think we should never even carry fruit bushes (for example) home from the nursery in winter, leafless. They must really frown on lorries with no rear windows at all, or loaded delivery vans.
Maybe this way of measuring explains why estates (called hatchbacks these days, for marketing reasons it seems) have such sloping tailgates - it does not affect the official carrying capacity and saves the manufacturer a bit of metal. It's no consolation though when I have a Welsh Dresser to carry.
I cancelled my Which? subscription after that, realising Motoring Which? had always been prejudiced against estate cars. These days most cars are estates anyway (sorry, hatchbacks) and the prejudice has been re-directed against 4x4's, like John Sergeant's famous idiotic rant in 2007 :-
http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/general-discussion/37007-driving-me-crazy.html
Sorry cannot find it on Youtube.
I believe that most manufacturers quote boot space measured from the floor to the bottom of the windows. ...... Strange I know, but......
Not just strange, but crazy I'd say.
Years ago Motoring Which? magazine reviewed one of those classic Volvo estates (245?) and said the estate offered no luggage space advantage over the saloon version. This was when large saloons all had the 3-box configeration (as some still are). Hardly believing what I was reading, I realised that they were doing just that - only measuring volume up to window sill height. Thus they were negating the entire point of estate variants, which was to utilise the otherwise "wasted" space above the boot of a 3-box saloon.
I actually wrote them a letter in protest at this nonsense, and they replied that it was "unsafe" to have anything above sill level as it obstructed visibility in the driver's mirror.
I wonder if they ever allowed rear seat passengers (or made them lie down) - by the same logic they should count every car as only a two-seater. They think we should never even carry fruit bushes (for example) home from the nursery in winter, leafless. They must really frown on lorries with no rear windows at all, or loaded delivery vans.
Maybe this way of measuring explains why estates (called hatchbacks these days, for marketing reasons it seems) have such sloping tailgates - it does not affect the official carrying capacity and saves the manufacturer a bit of metal. It's no consolation though when I have a Welsh Dresser to carry.
I cancelled my Which? subscription after that, realising Motoring Which? had always been prejudiced against estate cars. These days most cars are estates anyway (sorry, hatchbacks) and the prejudice has been re-directed against 4x4's, like John Sergeant's famous idiotic rant in 2007 :-
http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/general-discussion/37007-driving-me-crazy.html
Sorry cannot find it on Youtube.
DrZhivago said:
'Estates' are NOT called 'Hatchbacks' these days. Some manufacturers call an 'estate' an 'estate', while others call them 'tourers'. The hatchback always was and still is a 5-door version of a 'saloon'. The normal 'saloon' is 4-door. :S
Facebook
Twitter